ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled Wednesday that juvenile courts can continue handling certain cases involving children ages 10 to 12 even if the crime-of-violence charge that brought the case into juvenile court is later not sustained.
The July 22, 2026, opinion in In Re: D.E. provides statewide guidance on how Maryland courts should apply the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2022 in cases involving children under 13.
Under the 2022 law, juvenile courts generally do not have jurisdiction over delinquency proceedings involving children younger than 13. The law includes exceptions for children who are at least 10 years old and are alleged to have committed an act that would be considered a crime of violence if committed by an adult, or an act arising out of the same incident as that alleged crime of violence.
The question before the Court was whether juvenile court jurisdiction disappears if the State fails to prove the crime-of-violence allegation, but the child is found involved in a lesser offense from the same incident.
The Court held that it does not.
Writing for the Court, Judge Killough concluded that jurisdiction attaches when the State files a delinquency petition alleging a qualifying crime of violence and related offenses from the same incident. Once jurisdiction attaches, the Court held, it continues unless terminated by statute. A finding that the child was not involved in the crime of violence is not one of the events that ends juvenile court jurisdiction.
The case arose from a Baltimore City incident involving D.E., who was 12 when the State filed a delinquency petition charging him with robbery and four lesser offenses. Robbery is considered a crime of violence under Maryland law, and that allegation brought the case within juvenile court jurisdiction.
The charges stemmed from a Feb. 13, 2024, incident at a Royal Farms store on Light Street in Baltimore City. Court records summarized in the opinion state that Kelly Drnec stopped at the store while carrying a purse containing a laptop, cell phone, credit cards and a smaller purse. Several teenagers were in and around the store, and Drnec noticed a masked youth later identified as D.E. following her.
The State charged D.E. with robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, second-degree assault, theft of property valued at $1,500 or more and theft of property valued between $100 and $1,500. After an adjudicatory hearing, a magistrate found D.E. not involved in the robbery but involved in misdemeanor theft of property valued between $100 and $1,500. The magistrate found the State had not proven the force or intimidation element required for robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.
D.E. moved to dismiss the remaining misdemeanor theft finding, arguing the juvenile court lost jurisdiction once the robbery count was not sustained. His argument was that a 12-year-old alleged to have committed only a misdemeanor could not be brought into juvenile court under the Juvenile Justice Reform Act.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument, drawing a distinction between how juvenile court jurisdiction is obtained and how long that jurisdiction lasts. The opinion states that the jurisdictional statute determines whether the court has authority at the filing stage, while a separate statute provides that once the court obtains jurisdiction over a child, that jurisdiction continues until the person reaches 21 unless terminated sooner.
The Court described jurisdiction over a lesser offense from the same incident as “derivative at filing but durable thereafter.” In other words, the lesser offense must be tied to an alleged crime of violence when the case is filed, but the juvenile court does not lose authority over the lesser offense simply because the violent offense is later dismissed, not sustained or otherwise removed from the case.
The Court also adopted the reasoning of an earlier Appellate Court of Maryland decision, In re J.B., which held that juvenile court jurisdiction continued after a crime-of-violence charge was nolle prossed in a case involving a 12-year-old. The Supreme Court found no meaningful difference between a charge being nolle prossed and a charge being found not sustained after a hearing.
The ruling means that, in Maryland, a juvenile case involving a child ages 10 to 12 can continue when the State files a qualifying crime-of-violence allegation supported by probable cause, even if the child is ultimately found involved only in a lesser offense from the same incident.
The Court also rejected D.E.’s equal protection argument. D.E. argued he was treated differently than other 12-year-olds alleged to have committed misdemeanors. The Court found he was not similarly situated to a child alleged only to have committed a nonviolent misdemeanor because the State had probable cause to allege involvement in a crime of violence.
The Court said there is a rational relationship between treating juveniles accused of involvement in violent crimes differently and the State’s legitimate interest in addressing allegations of violent conduct differently from nonviolent conduct.
The opinion also noted that juvenile delinquency proceedings are civil in nature and that a delinquency adjudication is not a criminal conviction. The Court wrote that Maryland’s juvenile system is meant to provide care, protection, treatment, training and rehabilitation consistent with the child’s best interests and the public interest.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, leaving D.E.’s misdemeanor theft delinquency finding in place.
The decision provides statewide guidance for juvenile courts handling cases involving children ages 10 to 12 when prosecutors file a delinquency petition alleging a crime of violence and related lesser offenses from the same incident.
Got a tip or photo? Text us at 888-871-NEWS (6397) or email news@thebaynet.com.
Join The BayNet Membership for exclusive perks and zero ads.
Don’t miss a story—sign up for our newsletter!
